High achievement in public education is not just a function of funding. Students achieve and excel when they have high quality, engaging teachers; supportive parents; up-to-date tools and rigorous curriculum; and a safe environment. When they achieve less and need more assistance, there are counselors, tutors, and various programs.
Besides the tools and facilities, public education is overwhelmingly a function of people. Teachers teach, students learn, administrators oversee sites and departments, and support personnel ensure that cafeterias serve food, equipment works, employee needs are met, and more.
But because education is so people-centered, just how many people work in a district is indeed a function of funding. Likely 80% or more of a school district's budget is dedicated to salary and benefits, and teachers make up the largest segment of any employee group in a district.
There has been much hand wringing of late that public education keeps crying for more money but misspends it, that districts are top heavy in administration, and that money that should go into the classroom is diverted elsewhere. Some may consider this a good sound bite, but that doesn't make it reality.
Arizona falls below the national average when it comes to how much money is spent on administration in public education: 9.0% versus 10.8% (per the latest figures from the Arizona Auditor General and the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics). When I was Superintendent of the Paradise Valley School District, our administrative costs were less than 8% and often around 7.5%. But if you think schools really over-employ administrators, direct your argument for change where it belongs -- to your local school board, the elected body ultimately responsible for approving a district's budget and staffing. This is indeed very much a local control issue.
So if administrators are not scooping up money that should go in the classroom, why are most districts not able to reach the 65% bar that has become a rallying cry of presumed effectiveness? Part of the problem lies in the definition of what constitutes "in the classroom" -- and it is so narrow as to push that bar out of reach for most public schools. For example, there are numerous certificated employees, such as librarians, reading specialists, and counselors, who offer vital academic support for students, but are excluded from that 65%. Additionally, facilities themselves fall out of the classroom, and funds to help with maintenance and utilities were cut by the state legislature, requiring district to take M&O dollars from the classroom and put them in roof repairs and air conditioning bills.
Then you have districts that have to pour huge portions of their budgets into transportation and will never reach 65% in the classroom because of geography. Similarly, you have districts that service large populations of special needs students, who require numerous resources throughout the school day. And although districts receive federal I.D.E.A. funds for special education students, I.D.E.A. funding provides less than 40% of what districts much spend to service these students -- and the remaining funds come from the district budget. The list goes on and it's different in every district.
Public education has been cut $1.1 billion in less than two years -- even though the state added more than 121,000 K-12 students since fiscal year 2004. Some of those cuts, such as soft capital funds dedicated to textbooks and instructional materials, are specifically for items considered "in the classroom" funding, thus creating further obstacles to districts' abilities to put more money into the classroom.
School districts are doing more for less and dealing with yet another round of unfunded mandates from the legislature. To declare that public education shouldn't get any more funding -- and deserves to be cut -- because it's bloated and misspends the money it gets is a gross misstatement of reality. Before anyone makes such broad generalizations, they should go do the research into where the money really goes in each district to see how student needs are being met. The figures may add up differently than one thinks.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
"...The Arizona Legislature is no friend of public education..."
Thus wrote the editorial board of the Scottsdale Republic on August 19. Specifically, to me, this means that the Republican majority leadership has lost sight of the future of Arizona. Their focus on balancing the budget through major cuts to education -- nearly a billion dollars in the last two years -- rather than through economic reform indicates that they are shortsighted.
That is hurting our state. I heard the human resources director of a major Valley company say he could not get a desired managerial candidate to come to Arizona because the person has school-age children and was concerned about the lack of state support for public education. There is an important connection between public education and a viable business environment. The fundamental concept that a strong public education system helps create a better economy seems to be lost on our current Republican legislators.
Arizona must invest in public education. The most forward-thinking and positive outcomes of this mindset are that students will be better prepared for college and/or work through a more rigorous educational climate and that school dropout rates would decrease if teachers and administrators have time to spend with troubled youths. For business, this investment would produce a more skilled workforce and an environment that attracts families to Arizona.
This is why, after 37 years in public education, ending my career as superintendent of Paradise Valley Unified School District, I am running for the state legislature. I know the importance of looking to the future of our state. That future depends on sound schools and a strong partnership with the business community.
That is hurting our state. I heard the human resources director of a major Valley company say he could not get a desired managerial candidate to come to Arizona because the person has school-age children and was concerned about the lack of state support for public education. There is an important connection between public education and a viable business environment. The fundamental concept that a strong public education system helps create a better economy seems to be lost on our current Republican legislators.
Arizona must invest in public education. The most forward-thinking and positive outcomes of this mindset are that students will be better prepared for college and/or work through a more rigorous educational climate and that school dropout rates would decrease if teachers and administrators have time to spend with troubled youths. For business, this investment would produce a more skilled workforce and an environment that attracts families to Arizona.
This is why, after 37 years in public education, ending my career as superintendent of Paradise Valley Unified School District, I am running for the state legislature. I know the importance of looking to the future of our state. That future depends on sound schools and a strong partnership with the business community.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Two-faced
In the past I have criticized the Republican leadership in the legislature for not having vision and for not doing their due diligence before they act. For example, during this past legislative session, they passed more than 250 bills, but not one had to do with meaningful job creation. This should be our priority as we work to bring our economy back from the recession. The legislature can facilitate our economic recovery in many ways through bills passed…. and yet, no action. Instead, what took precedence was passing such bills as giving Eagle Scouts free fishing licenses – and hearing debate then voting down amendments to do the same for Girl Scouts. As an Eagle Scout, I appreciate the gesture, but it does absolutely nothing to improve our state and our economy in the long term. Legislative short-sightedness will undermine our economic resurgence even as some segments are beginning to see positive signs.
According to a majority of Republican legislators, one way to help the economy is through no tax increases or new taxes. Many signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Period. But after reading the article in the Arizona Republic published August 5, Arizona Homeowners Face Tax Hike after Move by Legislature, it appears that these legislators also are two-faced. By approving a measure tucked in an education budget bill, legislators have shifted $70 million that the state shouldered via the “homeowners rebate” over to school districts, many of whom will now have to raise local property taxes to cover what will no longer be coming from the state.
On the one side, many Republicans legislators have taken an oath not to raise taxes, but on the other, they voted to raise property taxes for homeowners. Make no mistake – by the time this takes effect, it will look like the school district is increasing taxes, not the legislature. I am not opposed to voters having the ability to increase a school district’s budget through overrides, but this instance occurred in the dark and without the voters’ knowledge or approval. And the districts will look like the villains.
If a legislator makes a promise and then cannot keep it, voters are at least owed an explanation. In this case, most voters found out about the reversal of the pledge months after the action was taken and by reading it in the paper. We need lawmakers who are open and honest and do their jobs. Two-faced individuals need not apply – and should not be elected.
According to a majority of Republican legislators, one way to help the economy is through no tax increases or new taxes. Many signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Period. But after reading the article in the Arizona Republic published August 5, Arizona Homeowners Face Tax Hike after Move by Legislature, it appears that these legislators also are two-faced. By approving a measure tucked in an education budget bill, legislators have shifted $70 million that the state shouldered via the “homeowners rebate” over to school districts, many of whom will now have to raise local property taxes to cover what will no longer be coming from the state.
On the one side, many Republicans legislators have taken an oath not to raise taxes, but on the other, they voted to raise property taxes for homeowners. Make no mistake – by the time this takes effect, it will look like the school district is increasing taxes, not the legislature. I am not opposed to voters having the ability to increase a school district’s budget through overrides, but this instance occurred in the dark and without the voters’ knowledge or approval. And the districts will look like the villains.
If a legislator makes a promise and then cannot keep it, voters are at least owed an explanation. In this case, most voters found out about the reversal of the pledge months after the action was taken and by reading it in the paper. We need lawmakers who are open and honest and do their jobs. Two-faced individuals need not apply – and should not be elected.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Back to School
As we approach the excitement of students and teachers returning to school for a new year, we need to take note of some warning signs that temper our enthusiasm. First of all, the 1% sales tax approved by voters in May only prevented further cuts to district budgets on top of the ones undertaken in response to the legislature’s slashing the state education budget. This means that class sizes will likely be greater than before and teachers will receive small or non-existent pay raises – and quite possibly pay cuts. Another cautionary sign: the recently released AIMS scores reflect an evolving curriculum in the area of math created by changes to math standards implemented last year. With lower scores being reported almost universally, there will be increased emphasis on math instruction to meet the new standards. Such focus will require more from students but also from teachers in terms of professional development and classroom management – even with smaller salaries and larger classes.
What can Arizona do about these issues? Certainly, funding education appropriately to reduce class sizes and to be able to adequately train teachers when the state mandates curriculum changes provides one solution. In order to do that, we must increase the revenue stream to the state by creating jobs so that we have more people working and spending money as well as paying taxes. Last year the state legislature passed more than 250 bills into law, but not one had to do with meaningful job creation. Secondly, Arizona needs legislators who know that an investment in education is the right thing to do for the future of our state. Besides providing our students with the skills they need for their futures, a strong public education system will produce a skilled workforce and a quality of life that will attract businesses to Arizona.
Another issue that impacts teachers’ workloads and class size is that of unfunded mandates. Every year the legislature passes laws that demand more of teachers – this past year, for example, the legislature required districts to provide a program to prevent violence in dating. Thus a new curriculum must be developed and approved and if teachers have to be trained to present it, which is very likely, that training will take them out of the classroom (and districts will have to pay for substitutes). Additionally, the new curriculum is added to everything else the teacher must teach. Teachers and schools become burdened with another responsibility that should be handled by parents. Continuing to put more on the backs of schools only detracts from learning, and when these requirements are not funded, they take away from an already overburdened school budget.
The solution to the education issue necessitates a long-term process, but steps need to be taken this fall to get the right people in place. That is why I am running for the state legislature.
What can Arizona do about these issues? Certainly, funding education appropriately to reduce class sizes and to be able to adequately train teachers when the state mandates curriculum changes provides one solution. In order to do that, we must increase the revenue stream to the state by creating jobs so that we have more people working and spending money as well as paying taxes. Last year the state legislature passed more than 250 bills into law, but not one had to do with meaningful job creation. Secondly, Arizona needs legislators who know that an investment in education is the right thing to do for the future of our state. Besides providing our students with the skills they need for their futures, a strong public education system will produce a skilled workforce and a quality of life that will attract businesses to Arizona.
Another issue that impacts teachers’ workloads and class size is that of unfunded mandates. Every year the legislature passes laws that demand more of teachers – this past year, for example, the legislature required districts to provide a program to prevent violence in dating. Thus a new curriculum must be developed and approved and if teachers have to be trained to present it, which is very likely, that training will take them out of the classroom (and districts will have to pay for substitutes). Additionally, the new curriculum is added to everything else the teacher must teach. Teachers and schools become burdened with another responsibility that should be handled by parents. Continuing to put more on the backs of schools only detracts from learning, and when these requirements are not funded, they take away from an already overburdened school budget.
The solution to the education issue necessitates a long-term process, but steps need to be taken this fall to get the right people in place. That is why I am running for the state legislature.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Prop 100 -- Not a Panacea
It was with great appreciation to the voters of Arizona that I applauded the huge margin of victory of Proposition 100 in May. It is an another example of the people of the state doing what is right for public schools and their children. I believe it is a role the state legislature should have played, but legislators rather passed the buck to the voters.
With all the support it engendered, Prop 100 should not be seen as a cure to the budget woes we face in public education. Most school districts still must cut their budgets, although less than previously feared. For example, even with Prop 100 passing, Scottsdale Unified School District has cut nearly 80 teachers from its ranks and made other efficiency moves that will negatively impact the quality of education. As class sizes increase, the teachers who remain will have less ability to provide individual attention to students and to communicate with parents.
Given that the sales tax authorized by Prop 100 is a temporary measure, we must elect legislators who understand the K-12 public school system and are committed to making changes in its function as well as its funding to lay a proper foundation for the future. That is why I am running for State Representative in LD 8.
With all the support it engendered, Prop 100 should not be seen as a cure to the budget woes we face in public education. Most school districts still must cut their budgets, although less than previously feared. For example, even with Prop 100 passing, Scottsdale Unified School District has cut nearly 80 teachers from its ranks and made other efficiency moves that will negatively impact the quality of education. As class sizes increase, the teachers who remain will have less ability to provide individual attention to students and to communicate with parents.
Given that the sales tax authorized by Prop 100 is a temporary measure, we must elect legislators who understand the K-12 public school system and are committed to making changes in its function as well as its funding to lay a proper foundation for the future. That is why I am running for State Representative in LD 8.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Of the People....
...for the people, by the people.
The vote Tuesday by the people of Arizona to accept a temporary increase to the sales tax is a significant event. Public schools and public safety organizations have avoided larger cuts that would have been devastating to their services.
I have been struck throughout this process by the Republican legislative leadership's disregard of their constitutional duty. Specifically, Article XI,Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution states, "...the legislature shall make such appropriations, to be met by taxation, as shall insure the appropriate maintenance of all state educational institutions, and shall make such special appropriations as shall provide for their development and improvement."
The Republican legislative leaders did not show the courage to increase revenues to fulfill this duty. Instead, they enacted more than 250 bills that tended to reflect individual agendas that do little or nothing to improve the future of Arizona. Case in point: there were no jobs bills among those transmitted to the Governor to sign. For all the hand wringing over the state's fiscal situation, there was no bill sent up that was designed to promote state growth through jobs creation. This legislative session reflected the short-sightedness of the Republicans in charge rather than the visionary leadership that is needed to take Arizona out of this recession and build for the future.
Lucky for us, the people of Arizona know what is important -- education and public safety. Thank you to the voters for providing a clear-cut direction -- and a message to those seeking to lead in these tumultuous times.
The vote Tuesday by the people of Arizona to accept a temporary increase to the sales tax is a significant event. Public schools and public safety organizations have avoided larger cuts that would have been devastating to their services.
I have been struck throughout this process by the Republican legislative leadership's disregard of their constitutional duty. Specifically, Article XI,Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution states, "...the legislature shall make such appropriations, to be met by taxation, as shall insure the appropriate maintenance of all state educational institutions, and shall make such special appropriations as shall provide for their development and improvement."
The Republican legislative leaders did not show the courage to increase revenues to fulfill this duty. Instead, they enacted more than 250 bills that tended to reflect individual agendas that do little or nothing to improve the future of Arizona. Case in point: there were no jobs bills among those transmitted to the Governor to sign. For all the hand wringing over the state's fiscal situation, there was no bill sent up that was designed to promote state growth through jobs creation. This legislative session reflected the short-sightedness of the Republicans in charge rather than the visionary leadership that is needed to take Arizona out of this recession and build for the future.
Lucky for us, the people of Arizona know what is important -- education and public safety. Thank you to the voters for providing a clear-cut direction -- and a message to those seeking to lead in these tumultuous times.
Monday, April 5, 2010
A Prop
We are at a crucial time in Arizona, not just for the present but for the future. Drastic funding cuts have put public education in Arizona in an untenable position, and that means that our young people are at risk of not receiving the quality of education they deserve and need to compete in their adult world.
Proposition 100, if passed, would provide a temporary 1% sales tax and two-thirds of the revenue generated is designated for K-12 education. Understand that this is not a boon to the budgets of school districts, but rather a stopgap measure that would only soften some of the impending cuts already in the state budget. With Arizona's per-pupil expenditure for K-12 education already near the bottom in the United States, the diminished funding for next school year is devastating. Scottsdale Unified School District projects a $10 million decrease in funding, which will result in 112 fewer teaching positions, causing class sizes to increase again. Larger classes mean that students receive less individual help, instruction is more homogeneous and less creative, and student discipline becomes a great problem. Additionally, teachers will be less likely to volunteer for after-school activities that enhance students' experiences. All of this will occur even if the sales tax is approved. Imagine the disaster is the proposition fails, because another $11 million will have to be cut at the Scottsdale district.
A concern for all citizens is the staggering dropout rate in our high schools. Most of us agree that students need to graduate to become more productive citizens and be a part of the skilled workforce that business and industry leaders require for a vibrant state economy. If Proposition 100 fails, many of the programs that sustain student interest, such as athletics, art, music, and theater, will be on the chopping block. Some elective courses in the area of career and technical education will likely be reduced as well, and these directly impact the state's workforce. The loss of these non-core classes and activities will result in higher dropout rates as these programs provide relevancy to the school day for many students. The downward spiral continues as fewer students graduate and their projected earnings decrease -- and state revenues fall accordingly.
Even if it passes, Proposition 100 is not enough for education or Arizona. We need to elect legislators and other state leaders who understand the importance of investing in our students to create a better future for our state.
Proposition 100, if passed, would provide a temporary 1% sales tax and two-thirds of the revenue generated is designated for K-12 education. Understand that this is not a boon to the budgets of school districts, but rather a stopgap measure that would only soften some of the impending cuts already in the state budget. With Arizona's per-pupil expenditure for K-12 education already near the bottom in the United States, the diminished funding for next school year is devastating. Scottsdale Unified School District projects a $10 million decrease in funding, which will result in 112 fewer teaching positions, causing class sizes to increase again. Larger classes mean that students receive less individual help, instruction is more homogeneous and less creative, and student discipline becomes a great problem. Additionally, teachers will be less likely to volunteer for after-school activities that enhance students' experiences. All of this will occur even if the sales tax is approved. Imagine the disaster is the proposition fails, because another $11 million will have to be cut at the Scottsdale district.
A concern for all citizens is the staggering dropout rate in our high schools. Most of us agree that students need to graduate to become more productive citizens and be a part of the skilled workforce that business and industry leaders require for a vibrant state economy. If Proposition 100 fails, many of the programs that sustain student interest, such as athletics, art, music, and theater, will be on the chopping block. Some elective courses in the area of career and technical education will likely be reduced as well, and these directly impact the state's workforce. The loss of these non-core classes and activities will result in higher dropout rates as these programs provide relevancy to the school day for many students. The downward spiral continues as fewer students graduate and their projected earnings decrease -- and state revenues fall accordingly.
Even if it passes, Proposition 100 is not enough for education or Arizona. We need to elect legislators and other state leaders who understand the importance of investing in our students to create a better future for our state.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Where's the Leadership?
I entered the race for a seat in the House of Representatives because I was frustrated with the lack of leadership in the Arizona House and Senate in resolving our deficit and moving our state forward. At no time has this void been apparent than this week, which they have hailed as the "week of the budget."
This, of course, begs the question, "Why hasn't there been a year of the budget?" Or 14 months? We have paid for the legislators to come into budgetary special sessions several times during both last year's session and the current session, over the summer and in the fall. And now they have declared they are going to work on the budget -- this week! In the meantime, we have read about work on bills that give free fishing licenses, remove regulations on concealed weapons, and throw our solar energy policies into such disarray that businesses have been ready to pack up and leave. Proposals containing balanced budgets have been presented to the "leadership," but these budgets have been ignored or shuffled off to various committees. Will the ideas presented surface during this week or will we see more of the same?
Personal ambition and individual agendas have become the rule, not just the norm, in our state legislature. It is imperative that we elect people who care about the future of our state and are willing to work to that end regardless of personal needs and wants. That is why I am running, because I believe public service should be just that. I have spent my professional career working to make sure people know how to analyze situations, think critically, and devise solutions to challenges. This is exactly what our legislators should be doing. I know that there is no quick fix to the economic recession, and we must continue to invest in those components that are most important to our future. Education, jobs, and sustainable resources must not be compromised, but rather fortified, if Arizona is to survive this recession.
This, of course, begs the question, "Why hasn't there been a year of the budget?" Or 14 months? We have paid for the legislators to come into budgetary special sessions several times during both last year's session and the current session, over the summer and in the fall. And now they have declared they are going to work on the budget -- this week! In the meantime, we have read about work on bills that give free fishing licenses, remove regulations on concealed weapons, and throw our solar energy policies into such disarray that businesses have been ready to pack up and leave. Proposals containing balanced budgets have been presented to the "leadership," but these budgets have been ignored or shuffled off to various committees. Will the ideas presented surface during this week or will we see more of the same?
Personal ambition and individual agendas have become the rule, not just the norm, in our state legislature. It is imperative that we elect people who care about the future of our state and are willing to work to that end regardless of personal needs and wants. That is why I am running, because I believe public service should be just that. I have spent my professional career working to make sure people know how to analyze situations, think critically, and devise solutions to challenges. This is exactly what our legislators should be doing. I know that there is no quick fix to the economic recession, and we must continue to invest in those components that are most important to our future. Education, jobs, and sustainable resources must not be compromised, but rather fortified, if Arizona is to survive this recession.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Governor Recommends Cutting CTE Funds
Long before I became a candidate, I had been saying to people, "The state leadership is proposing band-aids to our economic situation without regard for the future of Arizona." The latest proposal from Governor Brewer perfectly exemplifies this problem.
Take, for instance, her recommendation to eliminate Career and Technical Education (CTE) funds. Schools use this money for classes that prepare a skilled labor force, which, of course, is what industries need and expect.
CTE is not your father's shop class. Today's schools offer a wide spectrum of specialized classes, such as those in business education, including marketing and accounting; biotechnology; computer skills, including programming, repair, and business usages; and computer-aided design for engineering and architecture -- as well as 21st century skills in auto repair, welding, manufacturing, and culinary arts. These classes build the workforce that is a critical element in attracting businesses to Arizona. They also are challenging training grounds for our young people, adding significant value to their academic experience and making them more employable.
Cutting the state funds for these programs typifies the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face." We need these classes to prepare our students for their future and the future of Arizona. What's more, we lose $2 from the federal government for every $1 we cut from state funds for CTE. Eliminating these funds would be one more nail in the coffin of building a sustainable economy in our state.
Business and jobs go where the schools are good. Without Career and Technical Education, our schools fall farther behind those in other states with whom we compete. Band-aids won't work when the patient is in intensive care. We need a vision for the future of Arizona that also guides how we make decisions now -- and that is why I am running for state legislature.
Take, for instance, her recommendation to eliminate Career and Technical Education (CTE) funds. Schools use this money for classes that prepare a skilled labor force, which, of course, is what industries need and expect.
CTE is not your father's shop class. Today's schools offer a wide spectrum of specialized classes, such as those in business education, including marketing and accounting; biotechnology; computer skills, including programming, repair, and business usages; and computer-aided design for engineering and architecture -- as well as 21st century skills in auto repair, welding, manufacturing, and culinary arts. These classes build the workforce that is a critical element in attracting businesses to Arizona. They also are challenging training grounds for our young people, adding significant value to their academic experience and making them more employable.
Cutting the state funds for these programs typifies the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face." We need these classes to prepare our students for their future and the future of Arizona. What's more, we lose $2 from the federal government for every $1 we cut from state funds for CTE. Eliminating these funds would be one more nail in the coffin of building a sustainable economy in our state.
Business and jobs go where the schools are good. Without Career and Technical Education, our schools fall farther behind those in other states with whom we compete. Band-aids won't work when the patient is in intensive care. We need a vision for the future of Arizona that also guides how we make decisions now -- and that is why I am running for state legislature.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
A Vision for Arizona
On Sunday, January 24, the Arizona Republic began running a multi-part series looking at Arizona 2020, intended to be "a framework for the next decade" for our state. The first set of articles and editorials, which can be found at www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/arizona2020/visiondex.html, focuses on vision and includes steps forward from leaders in education, industry, and government from around the state.
If you have read my blogs and visited my website at www.electkriekard.com, you will see that there is a great deal of consistency in the ideas I have proposed about priorities for education and business to make our state flourish. For example, the writers believe, as do I, that education is fundamental and foundational and is one of the key factors that attract businesses to Arizona and keep them here.
There are many other factors, of course, and all are intertwined. The best solutions to our state's current challenges will address these multiple factors and balance them to produce optimal results. Unfortunately, the work coming from our legislative leaders at present seems considerably unbalanced from the weight of stand-alone bills and political posturing.
We need real solutions and true leadership to get Arizona moving forward. That is why I am running for the Legislature and I hope you will help me get there by helping turn out the vote this fall.
If you have read my blogs and visited my website at www.electkriekard.com, you will see that there is a great deal of consistency in the ideas I have proposed about priorities for education and business to make our state flourish. For example, the writers believe, as do I, that education is fundamental and foundational and is one of the key factors that attract businesses to Arizona and keep them here.
There are many other factors, of course, and all are intertwined. The best solutions to our state's current challenges will address these multiple factors and balance them to produce optimal results. Unfortunately, the work coming from our legislative leaders at present seems considerably unbalanced from the weight of stand-alone bills and political posturing.
We need real solutions and true leadership to get Arizona moving forward. That is why I am running for the Legislature and I hope you will help me get there by helping turn out the vote this fall.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Cleaning Up Clean Elections?
As has been rumored and expected for some time, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver appears ready to nullify the Clean Elections matching funds provision. I have conflicting thoughts over this action.
First of all, I like the idea of Clean Elections because it requires candidates to meet with and listen to the voters, to ask for support in person rather than spend time raising money from large donors to finance an impersonal mail and media campaign. I am participating as a Clean Elections candidate because I want to meet people, not consume hours daily "dialing for dollars." Shifting the realm of influence held by large donors, including PACs and lobbyists, and replacing it with a truly grassroots effort and interchange is a good thing for our state. The matching funds provision helps level the playing field between the "clean" candidate and one who is running on a traditional financing effort.
On the other hand, it is clear that the state could better use the money than finance campaigns. If a candidate raises $2 million in campaign funds and is running against a "clean" candidate, should the state match the $2 million? During this economic crisis, I believe the money dedicated to Clean Elections -- which comes from fees added to court and other fines, as well as voluntary contributions -- could be put to better use reducing some of the proposed cuts to education, health care, and children's services.
I made the decision to run "clean" even though I was aware that the matching funds might be eliminated. I am prepared to match the funds my opponents raise with my time and efforts meeting voters and the help of a lot of work by volunteers.
First of all, I like the idea of Clean Elections because it requires candidates to meet with and listen to the voters, to ask for support in person rather than spend time raising money from large donors to finance an impersonal mail and media campaign. I am participating as a Clean Elections candidate because I want to meet people, not consume hours daily "dialing for dollars." Shifting the realm of influence held by large donors, including PACs and lobbyists, and replacing it with a truly grassroots effort and interchange is a good thing for our state. The matching funds provision helps level the playing field between the "clean" candidate and one who is running on a traditional financing effort.
On the other hand, it is clear that the state could better use the money than finance campaigns. If a candidate raises $2 million in campaign funds and is running against a "clean" candidate, should the state match the $2 million? During this economic crisis, I believe the money dedicated to Clean Elections -- which comes from fees added to court and other fines, as well as voluntary contributions -- could be put to better use reducing some of the proposed cuts to education, health care, and children's services.
I made the decision to run "clean" even though I was aware that the matching funds might be eliminated. I am prepared to match the funds my opponents raise with my time and efforts meeting voters and the help of a lot of work by volunteers.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Balancing Cuts for Growth
I was interested in the tax cut plan unveiled on January 5 by House Speaker Kirk Adams because it contains some elements that I have been proposing to stimulate our economy. However, it misses some important features that would sustain growth for our future.
As proposed in the plan, tax benefits for businesses remain important to attract new employment opportunities; this could encompass growth in existing Arizona companies as well as businesses that would relocate to Arizona. I also agree that there should be a focus on research and high-tech industries, as I have stated previously. The gain in employment of residents, coupled with employee taxes and, more importantly, spending, should offset the tax benefits given the company.
However, I take issue with the portion of the plan that calls for reductions in personal income and property taxes, especially if done at the same time. To significantly reduce state revenues before we balance the budget is too risky and short-sighted. Even though the plan, if passed, would not start phasing in until 2011, it would commit us to cuts regardless of the state of the recovery. I believe we need to support the business incentives, but no other further cuts to the revenue stream at this time.
Another piece lacking from this plan: any acknowledgment that a critical factor in attracting businesses to relocate to Arizona is the support of public education in our state. Companies are concerned about the available skilled labor source as well as the quality of life for their managers and their families who would be moving here. Increasing support of public education is an investment that also should be part of the incentive plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)